First, I want to apologize to anyone who tried to comment on the blog last week and couldn’t. I’ve heard from several people who said they tried to add a comment but the blog wouldn’t let them. Damned, stupid blog. It takes you to some kind of page, I guess, that makes it seem like I am monitoring comments before letting them post. Rest assured, I am not. I don't even monitor my own comments before I post them, let alone yours.
The IT folks are working on the problem now. It has something to do with bandwidth, I’m sure. But in the meantime, I don’t want to wait any longer to post, so off we go.
Well . . . the CCC conference in Chicago last week was a huge success, if a bit of a blur. It seems to have gone by in about three minutes. I remember having a very good drinking session at the bar Tuesday night with Teala, Larry, Sonya, Judy, Mark Ragan and Jen McClure and others.
And I remember having a terrific dinner Wednesday night with Marc Wright, this brilliantly funny, sarcastic Brit who is helping Ragan bring my Master Class over to London in the fall.
And I remember saying something about “love butter” in the luncheon general session, and that leading to a terrific conversation at the cocktail party on that very topic.
But the one thing I remember most clearly is the keynote session, with Professor TJ Larkin.
Larkin kicked off the conference on Wednesday, to good reviews. Ragan decided to bring in The Professor after he got a standing ovation at the IABC conference last year, and he didn’t disappoint.
But the man does have a very unusual speaking style. He starts verrrrry slow, and dry. In fact, after Mark Ragan introduced him, he stood at the podium for a good 20 seconds without saying a word, fumbling with his glasses and rearranging things on the lectern.
At first, I thought he was having a stroke.
But he finally started, and I realized that he does this on purpose. He starts slow—in both speaking style and content—so he can build to a big finish. And it works for him.
The first, slow part of his speech was about the history of communication—and he took us back all the way to the cavemen. This prompted one attendee to lean over and whisper to me: “How long do you suppose he’s going to stay in the Paleolithic period?”
But he eventually got it going, and by the time he got to the 20th Century, he was rolling along quite nicely.
I like TJ Larkin a lot, and have a lot of respect for his work. I’m always impressed by people who can actually cite “research” when they talk, and use words like “anthropology” and “sociology” instead of the ones I tend to use, like “love butter” and “drunken midgets on acid.”
But there is one fundamental thing I disagree with him about. Namely, his assertion that the only effective channel for communicating big issues like major change in the organization is the front-line supervisors. Executive communication doesn’t work. Communication vehicles don’t work. Just face-to-face communication at the supervisory level. That’s it.
During one segment of the talk, he put a picture of a blue-collar miner up on the screen. The guy was big and gritty, with a dirt-smeared, grubby face. He looks like the grown-up version of a kid who used to kick my ass twice a week in grammar school.
“This is Louie,” he told the crowd, by way of introduction. And then he talked about what a great supervisor Louie is—and how his employees are the best workers in the company, and how he always hits his safety and efficiency numbers, and how his employees all love him.
“I don’t need to tell Louie how to communicate,” Larkin said in his speech, admitting that he wouldn’t want to even try to tell Louie how to communicate, even if he needed to.
That much we can agree on. If a professorial type like Larkin, or a sissy communications consultant like me, were to try and tell Louie anything, he would in all likelihood pull our underwear up over our heads, and then dunk us in the toilet.
(It reminds me of the time I had to address a bunch of blue-collar utility managers for an organization in Texas, and as soon as I walked in the room, this huge Texan wearing boots and a Stetson hat put his big, meaty, grizzly-bear paw on my shoulder, and said: “Please tell me you’re not one of those bullshit, all-hat-and-no-cattle consultants.” I sorta wet myself, just a little.)
The problem with Larkin's theory is that he seems to think that most organizations are made up primarily of people like Louie—down-to-earth guys and gals who are terrific managers and naturally great communicators. All we need to do is give them the tools and the information to communicate, and then get out of their way, he says.
And that is where he and I part ways. Sure, Louie is probably a good communicator. But it’s been my experience that Louie is the exception, not the rule. For every Louie, there are dozens of terrible managers and supervisors.
Here are some of the supervisors sharing the workspace with Louie. These people are fictitious, but they are based on real people I’ve met over the years. For every Louie, there is a:
Mary. Mary is a back-stabbing little bitch. Every time one of her employees comes to her with an idea, Mary steals it and takes credit for it. Mary once referred to one of her workers as “my slave” in front of bunch of people. The employee fled to the bathroom in tears.
Don. Don is a raging sexist. Don actually has a chart in his desk, where he keeps track of his daily “Pick of the Day” choice—i.e., the woman employee who looks the best that day. It’s usually the one with the shortest skirt, or the tightest blouse. The man is a walking erection. Don can only relate to women in one way: with his penis. Don’s penis is his core competency, and he has serious low-hanging fruit issues. He has been known to shift his paradigm right in front of female employees. Unfortunately, Don has 12 women reporting to him, so you can imagine how well that works.
Maury. Maury is the poster child for the Peter Principle. He got promoted way out of his skill set, and is in way over his head. He is so busy just trying to cover his ass, and his mistakes, that he communicates to his employees about once every nine months.
Lance. Lance is from the south side of Chicago, and he hates black people. Only he doesn’t say that. He says what all bigots from the south side of Chicago say: “Hey, there’s black people, and then there’s niggers. I don’t hate black people. I hate niggers.” Lance currently has four black people working for him, but nobody is quite sure which category he puts them in.
Deanna. Deanna refuses to join the technology revolution. Her workers will send her e-mails, but she won’t read them. “If it’s important,” she has been known to say, “print out the e-mail and put it on my chair.” Needless to say, all that important corporate information that flows into Deanna’s e-mail in-box, and which should then flow down to employees, never sees the light of day.
I could go on and on. There are countless categories of bad managers in the workplace. And that’s why I disagree with Professor’s Larkin that these supervisors need to be the primary vehicle for communicating big issues in the workplace.
They need to have a role, yes. A big role. But we also have to have plenty of backup plans in place for when the supervisors fail . . . as they almost always do.
P.S. If you try and post a comment and can't, please keep trying. It will be up and running again soon. Please try every minute or two for the next couple of days. I mean, what else do you have to do, right?
Comments (10)
Steve, I recently left a Fortune 200 consulting firm, where I worked in a corporate communications group of about 40 people. 20 of us worked for a great manager -- heck, I'd say the world's best manager. She supported us, left us alone to do our jobs, and informed us constantly of any changes, problems, or happening going on in the company. She trusted us -- and one of the ways she showed that was by trusting us with information.
Guess who the other 20 people in the department worked for? The world's all-time worst manager -- conniving, manipulative, bullying -- think of just about any nasty adjective, and it fit her. Do you think that SHE shared information openly with HER people? No way. She hoarded information the same way she hoarded compliments, as just one of her many ways of exercising power over her people.
You've already said it, Steve, but I can tell you from painful first-hand experience: if you report to an outstanding manager, you won't need to get information from anywhere else. But if you report to a manager-devil, all you can do is pray to god you'll get some information from corporate HQ, because you sure as heck ain't going to get it from him.
Posted by Samantha | May 1, 2006 9:26 PM
Posted on May 1, 2006 21:26
Great seeing you in Chicago, Steve, even if we didn't have nearly enough time to catch up! You are the only consultant I know, other than maybe that feisty Canadian woman who does the sex-talk TV show, who can use the phrase "love butter" in front of a group of conference attendees and not get arrested for it.
I mostly agree with you about TJ Larkin's keynote. The part I don't agree with is when you say starting off slowly works for him. It doesn't. I was about to gather my big conference notebook and leave when he finally started to roll. But I agree with your disagreement about Larkin's insistence that face-to-face communication is all that matters -- and for the same reasons you give.
Hey, there's no bigger proponent of face-to-face than I am. Have been since the '80s, when we were just coming out of the print-only era. But to suggest that one medium can do it all, or even most of it, is preposterous.
Where is Shel Holtz in this discussion???
Posted by Robert J Holland | May 2, 2006 7:54 AM
Posted on May 2, 2006 07:54
If face-to-face communication was foolproof, we'd all be out of jobs. The reason other vehicles exist is because people have different ways they process information and vehicles have different strengths. That's why the best way integrates those vehicles: an email message announcing a big change, supervisor face-to-face filling in the details, intranet story with more details, resources, opportunity for feedback and polling etc.
Our company has a strong culture. We strongly advocate face-to-face communication with front-line supervisors at our company, but we also hear from Employees who don't get the message the way it was intended -- if they get it at all. So trust your supervisors to do the job -- but don't rely on them to do it alone.
Posted by Kathy F. | May 2, 2006 9:46 AM
Posted on May 2, 2006 09:46
Of COURSE! Honestly, I don't know why we keep having a raging argument about this. I interviewed Larkin six months ago and he basically said the same things everyone here is saying, though he takes a less dim view of supervisors than Steve does.
Larkin says: Use communication vehicles, but know that, especially if you're trying to make a big, deep cultural change, you've got to get the supervisors on board.
Others say: Don't overlook supervisors as a key part of your communication strategy, but know that it's also crucial to offer companywide vehicles and communication from the top.
Would that my wife and I disagreed so compatibly!
Posted by David Murray | May 2, 2006 10:28 AM
Posted on May 2, 2006 10:28
Hmmm ... I think I worked for Mary once ... I'm ashamed to admit that I was the employee who hid crying in the bathroom ...
I understand what you're saying about the supervisors from hell, Steve. (Boy, do I.) But I think Larkin's point must be -- has to be -- what David is pointing out: You can't do anything serious without them. As a litmus test, try to imagine an executive communication that would actually work *without* the supervisors. Even if you got the top dog walking the floor, I can't imagine it.
Boss: Howdy, boys, we're going to be making some big changes around here.
Crying employee: That all sounds great, but I work for this bitch Mary ... so how's any of that going to be different for me?
Boss: Crying? There's no crying in corporate finance! Get out. Sorry about that, Mary. I didn't know your staff were such weenies ...
(Bitter? Who me? Naaaaaah ... I had the sense to quit!)
Maybe it should be a communications imperative that any serious change effort be preceeded by a serious comm audit (yes, I realize that's actually an imperative, but how often is it actually done?) and that said comm audit should also inventory the supervisors and make sure they're in appropriate situations. I don't say "can all the bad ones" because most aren't really cardboard cut-outs like the ones described above. Some actually have skills the company needs -- which is presumably why they were hired in the first place. They simply end up in inappropriate situations, with managers that don't know how to keep their baser instincts in check. (Kick Don and Lance to the curb, though, and lock Mary away in a box somewhere with no direct reports, for the love of money.)
Posted by DeAnna B | May 2, 2006 11:23 AM
Posted on May 2, 2006 11:23
This is somewhat appropriate to the subject matter and (much to their dismay, most likely) throws Shel and TJ into the fray without their actual participation. It does offer some insight as to their thoughts on the matter and felt it would add to the discussion.
http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/tj_larkins_response_to_my_response/
Posted by Neal Jones | May 2, 2006 11:51 AM
Posted on May 2, 2006 11:51
All employees in the universe when given information about a major organizational change have this in mind: "Great. Now how does this impact us?"
And that's all they care about. Communication departments can spout off until the cows come home about how great this change will be, but until it impacts employees’ daily activities and routines, they really could care less.
That is why both supervisor and executive-level communication must occur jointly. The executive level (through the communications department) must showcase the why and how from the company’s perspective and the supervisor must be armed with information on the specific impact to his department.
And that is how every supervisor *should* think – “what changes will occur in my department because of this decision?”
As communication professionals (eh-hem), it is our job to coordinate the information dissemination from the top brass and to also set the message expectation at the supervisor level. However, of course it’s up to the supervisors to actually deliver. Those that do are respected, and those that don’t are not, and thus the Marys and Maurys of the supervisory world are self-created. They are developing their own departmental image based on their communication styles, and there’s nothing we can do about that.
I’m living this story. My supervisor is terrible at communicating, terrible at giving information to the group about what’s going on from the executive level, which is so amazing (and frustrating) to me considering she oversees my job as corporate communications manager.
That’s all I got. Thanks for allowing me a few moments on the cerebral couch.
Posted by Pablo | May 2, 2006 1:08 PM
Posted on May 2, 2006 13:08
Good stuff here. Can't disagree with any of it. I will add, however, that all of this adds up to a role that is -- dare I say it with David Murray in the room? -- strategic. And it requires that, if communication doesn't have a -- jargon alert!!! -- "seat at the table," then at least the communication function must be represented in management's discussion about how best to get all leaders in the business (especially those pesky supervisors and managers) on board. Because, truly, without them it just won't work.
You see, we can wish all day long that our jobs consist solely of writing great stories, making pretty Web sites, throwing great parties, and sticking up for the underappreciated masses who work for the company. But our companies need us. They need us to think strategically about how to use communication as a way to get everyone on board with whatever the problem du jour happens to be. They need our eyes and ears and our unfiltered perspectives on what we see and hear. They need our expertise to find the right combination of media for enabling two-way communication about business matters (and thank you, DeAnna, for pointing out the necessity of an audit in our hypothetical example.
Posted by Robert J Holland | May 2, 2006 2:33 PM
Posted on May 2, 2006 14:33
Crap, I was positively brilliant in a previous post that didn't get posted and I didn't save. Something about whimpy smelly guys and sniffing masacistic scary clean guys and I'm sure I worked the word communications in there somewhere....
And BTW it's not soccer, it's FOOTBALL to the entire world except the USA. As a newly transplanted Italian from the States, my mind set and my waistline are rapidly expanding to global porportions.
Posted by suzanne salvo | May 3, 2006 12:42 PM
Posted on May 3, 2006 12:42
While both Pablo and Robert nearly got to the root of this issue, neither quite did. Just as TJ Larkin didn't quite get there either in the Chicago address.
This is not just about communication. In order for supervisors and managers to be effective communicators, they must be able to make information relevant to their teams. But the majority can't. They were promoted because they were great tacticians. To make information relevant is a very cerebral, conceptual step. And, as TJ Larkin pointed out, the conceptual is not where our language and communication skills are grounded.
Coming late to the discussion, but it's been very interesting to read!
Posted by Stacy Wilson | May 16, 2006 1:19 PM
Posted on May 16, 2006 13:19